2018 TEXAS CHILD CARE MARKET RATE SURVEY FINAL REPORT Conducted for: The Texas Workforce Commission Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources LBJ School of Public Affairs The University of Texas at Austin Texas Institute for Child & Family Wellbeing School of Social Work The University of Texas at Austin
61
Embed
2018 TEXAS CHILD CARE MARKET RATE SURVEY · areas’ maximum allowable reimbursement rates with actual market rate distributions. This analysis is intended to measure the degree of
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
2018 TEXAS CHILD CARE MARKET RATE SURVEY
FINAL REPORT Conducted for:
The Texas Workforce Commission
Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources LBJ School of Public Affairs The University of Texas at Austin
Texas Institute for Child & Family Wellbeing School of Social Work The University of Texas at Austin
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Analysis and Trends .......................................................................................................... 13
Market Rates and Other Statistical Descriptions ...................................................................... 13
Part Day Care Availability .......................................................................................................... 15
Quality Care Availability ............................................................................................................ 18
Quality Care Pricing ................................................................................................................... 20
Subsidy Acceptance and Pricing ................................................................................................ 21
2. Child Care Daily Market Rates – State of Texas .............................................................................. 23
3. Child Care Daily Market Rates and LWDA Established Rates: Percentile Analysis ............................ 27
4. Special Analyses ........................................................................................................................... 33
4.1 Special Analyses — Services and Enrollment ....................................................................... 35
4.2 Special Analyses — Administrative Categories .................................................................... 36 Appendix A. Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. A-1
Levels of Analysis ..................................................................................................................... A-1
Table A-2. Area Effects, Untransformed Rates ......................................................................................... A-6
Table A-3. Rate Type Effects ..................................................................................................................... A-7
Table A-4. Surveys Completed in Disaster and Non-disaster Counties .................................................... A-8
1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
3
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Texas Institute for Child and Family Wellbeing (TXICFW), in partnership with the Ray Marshall
Center for the Study of Human Resources (RMC), has undertaken the 2018 Texas Child Care Market Rate
Survey as contracted by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) via Purchase Order number 320AD 18-
0000591.
This report summarizes child care market rate data for the entire state of Texas and for each of
its 28 local workforce development areas (LWDAs). For the first time in this 2018 report, market rates for
child care are estimated using a combination of survey data and TWC administrative records data on
approved child care subsidy rates. Three types of child care facilities were surveyed between October
2017 and May 2018: licensed child care centers, registered homes and licensed homes. In the survey,
licensed and registered homes are grouped together, but separated for analysis. Table 1.1 below details
the sample for the survey.
Table 1.1.1 Overview of Sample and Response Rate by Child Care Facility Type
Facility Type Total Sampled
Total Eligible
Total Respondents
Response Rate*
Licensed Child Care Centers 2122 1881 1378 73.3%
Licensed and Registered Homes 1935 1650 713 43.2%
Total 4057 3531 2091 59.2% *Response rate is calculated by taking the number of respondents who completed the survey and dividing it by the number of facilities determined to be eligible to take the survey.
Also new for 2018, the Texas Child Care Market Rate Survey report has been broken out into two
reports. The main report, this document, is more compact than in earlier years. It contains all narrative
descriptions of the survey and methods, statewide estimates of all findings, and the technical appendices.
The second, supplemental report, contains almost a hundred pages of tables that include all findings
broken out by local board, tables that had previously been included in the main report. The supplemental
report is also available in spreadsheet form. It is hoped that this new two-report format will allow easier
reading and comprehension of statewide trends and observations, while perhaps saving some paper and
printing costs for those who may not need detailed statistics for all local areas.
The main report includes four sections, followed by several technical appendices. The first
section, this introduction, briefly describes the research methods used for this survey and provides an
analytic overview of key findings.
The second section of the main report consists of statistics describing the distributions of
statewide daily market rates for child care. In addition to the mean daily rates, the following percentiles
are provided: 30th, 40th, 50th (median), 60th, 70th, and 75th. Other components that were previously
4
included in this section of the report have been moved to the supplemental report. These include 1) daily
market rates for child care presented for each LWDA by: type of facility, age group, and full-day vs. part-
day status; 2) tables for each LWDA including a summary of rate data by age group (collapsed across
facility types); and 3) tables for each LWDA summarizing rate data by facility type (collapsed across age
groups).
The third section of the main report consists of a percentile analysis that compares data on local
areas’ maximum allowable reimbursement rates with actual market rate distributions. This analysis is
intended to measure the degree of ‘access’ to the local market that a hypothetical customer would have
with a maximum reimbursement rate subsidy in hand. General trends and patterns in the statewide level
of access are included in the main report, as well as one table summarizing global access at the local level.
These percentile analyses are presented in two groups: one for regular maximum reimbursement rates,
and another for maximum ‘enhanced’ reimbursement rates that may be available to certain providers,
depending on local rules. All detailed percentiles analysis has been moved to the supplemental report,
including a presentation of maximum allowable reimbursement rates by LWDA by type of facility, age
group, and part- or full-day care, followed by an analysis of the percentiles at which such rates will allow
reimbursement.
The fourth section of the main report contains two statewide tables describing facilities that
responded to the survey, but not including those facilities that only contributed data on subsidized rates
via administrative records. One table reports the percentages of respondents offering care at non-
traditional hours, transportation services offered, percentages of facilities with national accreditation and
Texas Rising Star status, and two similar but distinct measures of the percentage of facilities serving any
subsidized children, and the proportion of the enrolled children receiving a child care subsidy. The second
table includes percentages of non-sectarian providers (non-profit and for-profit), sectarian providers
(non-profit and for-profit), and community-based organizations (non-profit and for-profit). Detailed
versions of these tables presenting the same measures by LWDA have been moved to the supplemental
report.
5
1.2 OVERVIEW OF STUDY DESIGN
This discussion of the study design briefly describes the sampling technique, the interview
process, and the analysis for the 2018 Child Care Market Rate Survey. A more detailed technical
description of the analytic approach for the project, including new methods incorporating administrative
records data on subsidized rates, is supplied in Appendix A. This section concludes with a brief analysis of
trends by comparing results of this market rate survey to those of the prior year’s survey, which was based
on 2016-2017 data and completed in early 2017.
Sample of Child Care Facilities
The population of interest in this study is the priced child care market in Texas. Licensed and
registered facilities that charge families directly and do not discount rates based on prior relationships
with families are included in this study to determine child care market rates. Starting with the 2018 report,
subsidized rates are now included by incorporating administrative records data, with careful attention
paid to weighting schemes to ensure that subsidized rates carry only as much weight in the final analysis
as the share of child care they actually represent. The 2018 study survey sample was drawn from a list of
all 15,258 licensed and registered child care facilities provided by the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services (TDFPS) on September 8th, 2017. The list included three types of child care facilities
in each of the 28 local workforce development areas (LWDAs):
● Licensed Child Care Centers (LCCCs)
● Licensed Child Care Homes (LCCHs)
● Registered Child Care Homes (RCCHs)
Head Start facilities were removed from the list prior to sampling because they do not charge
families directly. Next, a small statewide representative sample of 1,000 facilities was randomly selected
in order to 1) provide greater statistical power for estimating statewide rates and trends and 2) increase
the precision of rate estimates for the largest local boards that provide the bulk of care in the state. A
second random sample was drawn from the remaining facilities to estimate rates at the LWDA level. For
this latter sample, we chose a target number of centers and a separate target for homes from every LWDA
based on projections of the number needed to yield an average of 50 independent rate observations in
center and home full-day rate categories.1 Projections based on detailed response rates to the last three
annual surveys indicated that, on average, 102 LCCCs, 17 LCCHs, and 82 RCCHs per LWDA were needed to
reach this goal. These target numbers were then increased by between 1 percent and 10 percent for
LWDA and facility type combinations that showed low response rates in recent surveys. The target
1 This target of 50 independent rate observations is an increase over the 35 used in prior years. Some of this added precision is offset by under-sampling of subsidized facilities described below.
6
number of facilities was then randomly selected from each LWDA, or if fewer providers were available in
any given combination of LWDA and facility type, the entire population was selected (a complete census).
Implementation of this sampling scheme resulted in all facilities of any type being selected from seven
LWDAs: 1, 7, 9, 12, 17, 25, and 27. In addition to these seven, a complete census of LCCCs was necessary
in four more LWDAs, a complete census of LCCHs was necessary in two more LWDAs, and a complete
census of RCCHs was necessary in thirteen more LWDAs.
Before the survey sample was finalized, a match was performed between the list of sampled
facilities and a database indicating which facilities were serving subsidized children, whose rates were
already known because they had been agreed upon. These partially subsidized facilities were randomly
split into two groups, with one half being retained in the sample and the other half set aside to be excluded
from further study. The net effect of these two changes, including the increased target described above
and the removal of half of the subsidized facilities, was a nine percent reduction in the total survey sample,
compared to prior years, but the resulting survey sample itself is more heavily inclusive of non-subsidized
facilities. Another way of describing this is as an under-sample of subsidized facilities, whose rate data
are largely redundant with existing data sources, and a corresponding over-sample of non-subsidized
facilities, whose rates constitute the bulk of the paid market and are not otherwise available without
surveying. Despite the reduced overall sample size for the survey portion, both subsidized and
nonsubsidized rates are estimated with greater precision than in prior years’ surveys.
Before final rates were estimated, data from the statewide sample were added to that from the
local samples in their respective areas, as well as the subsidized rate data, and weighting schemes were
applied as appropriate (see Appendix A). The number of rate observations collected by this design was
more than adequate to provide stable rate estimates for all LWDAs, without needing to rely on rates from
adjacent areas or any other kinds of estimates or approximations.
Data Collection
Detailed training and supervision was provided to research staff members on survey
methodology, interviewing protocols, data entry and collection, and tracking procedures by advanced
graduate students and the project manager.
Prior to interviews, the research staff mailed introductory letters to all facilities in the sample
explaining the survey purpose, goals and objectives, confidentiality policies, and the voluntary nature of
participation. Information was presented in both English and Spanish unless providers’ surnames
suggested they were of Vietnamese origin, in which case information was presented in both English and
Vietnamese.
A seven-station call center at TXICFW operated Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM to 7:00
PM. Research staff members maintained a tracking database containing basic provider information
7
(facility name, LWDA, phone number, facility identification number) and call history (number of attempts,
date and time of attempt, preferred calling times, appointments, call results, final status). A minimum of
two morning and two afternoon/evening calls were made to contact each provider beginning in October
2017 and ending in May 2018. The research staff administered calls at least one week apart unless an
appointment or preferred calling time was established with a provider. In these cases, the staff made up
to three additional attempts to complete the survey.
In order to prevent any delay in data collection and increase participation, bilingual research staff
members (five English/Spanish and one English/Vietnamese) conducted interviews with centers and
homes. Two additional research staff member conducted interviews with all identified multi-site facilities.
A website was also constructed to present further information about the survey to providers. Finally, a
toll free number was available for providers to return missed calls, return a message, or ask further
questions about the survey.
If research staff were unable to complete the survey after all attempts had been made to reach a
provider, the facility was marked as ‘overdialed’ and no more attempts to contact that facility were made.
In cases where the phone number provided was disconnected or no longer in service, the research staff
attempted to contact the facility three times at least one week apart. If the number was still not working
and no additional information was available online, the staff determined the facility to be ineligible.
During an interview, research staff members screened out facilities that did not represent the
true price market for child care in Texas. These facilities include those that only offered drop-in care, part-
day care with no after-school care, summer camps, care provided to specific populations only (i.e. children
with special needs, children of teen moms, children of staff at a company, etc.), and free/family-
discounted child care services. School and kindergarten programs that did not offer regular afterschool
care and Head Start programs were also excluded. Finally, facilities that had closed or no longer had
children enrolled were determined to be ineligible.
8
Final Call Disposition
A total of 4,057 child care facilities (2,122 centers and 1,935 homes) were included in the survey
sample this year. Of these facilities, 526 (13.0%) did not meet study eligibility criteria and were dropped
from the response rate calculations. For centers, the top reasons for not meeting eligibility criteria
included:
1) No full-day, part-day, or after school care offered on a regular basis (25.3%);
2) Care to specific population only/not open to the public (19.9%);
3) Disconnected number or non-working number (15.8%).
For homes, top reasons for ineligibility included:
1) Disconnected number or non-working number (47.8%);
2) Closed or not providing care (34.0%);
3) Free/Family-discounted child care (13.3%).
Table 1.2.1 below details the eligibility of child care providers who were contacted.
Table 1.2.1 Eligibility Status of Child Care Facilities
Homes Centers Total
Not Eligible 285 14.7% 241 11.4% 526 13.0%
Eligible 1650 85.3% 1881 88.6% 3531 87.0%
Total 1935 2122 4057
9
The number of eligible providers is used to calculate the overall response rate. Of the 3,531
eligible child care providers, 2,091 (59.2%) completed the survey. This overall response rate reflects the
same pattern seen in previous years in which homes have lower response rates than centers. The overall
response rate for homes was 43.2% and the overall response rate for centers was 73.3%. Table 1.2.2
below details the final call disposition of all eligible child care facilities.
Table 1.2.2 Final Call Disposition of Eligible Child Care Facilities
Homes Centers Total
Completed 713 43.2% 1378 73.3% 2091 59.2%
Refused 83 5.0% 30 1.6% 113 3.2%
Overdialed 820 49.7% 456 24.2% 1276 36.1%
Withdrew 13 0.8% 6 0.3% 19 0.5%
Partial 21 1.3% 11 0.6% 32 0.9%
Total 1650 1881 3531
While these response rates are a few percentage points below those attained in recent years, at
least three factors that are known to depress response rates are likely responsible. For one, the survey
design under-sampled subsidized facilities, leaving fewer of them in the final sample, yet subsidized
facilities are known to respond at higher rates (see Appendix A, response bias analysis). A second factor
is that maximum reimbursement rates had been frozen throughout the survey period, a practice that has
been associated with reduced response rates in earlier years of this survey. Finally, just before the survey
was fielded, hurricane Harvey caused widespread destruction and disruption for a large portion of the
state. Despite our attempts to ameliorate the effects of this by delaying the survey by a few months for
disaster-affected counties, we ultimately observed almost a four percentage point reduction in response
rates in these counties (see Appendix A, disaster counties).
HOMES: Both licensed and registered homes were combined into a single sample of 1,935 homes.
Of these homes, 1,650 were determined to be eligible. A total of 713 (43.2%) providers completed
interviews, 83 (5.0%) refused to complete interviews, and 13 withdrew (0.8%). An additional 21 providers
(1.3%) completed only a portion of the interview. Finally, 820 (49.7%) providers were overdialed.
CENTERS: A total of 2,122 centers were sampled. Of these centers, 1,881 were determined to be
eligible. A total 1,378 (73.3%) providers completed interviews, 30 (1.6%) refused to complete interviews,
and six withdrew (0.3%). An additional 11 providers (0.6%) completed only a portion of the interview.
Finally, 456 (24.2%) providers were overdialed.
10
Measures
The Market Rate Surveys for home-based and center-based facilities covered similar topics.
However, home-based facilities provided detailed information concerning each child under their care
(age, exact schedule of care, and rate charged), whereas center-based facilities provided rates by age
group and by whether care was full-day or part-day (less than six hours per day). See Table 1.2.3 for a
summary of information collected on home-based and center-based surveys.
Table 1.2.3 Summary of Survey Data Collected by Facility Type
Topics Home-Based Survey Center-Based Survey
Hours of Operation Yes Yes
Vacation Schedules Yes Yes
Child Age and Enrollment Individual age and schedule for each child in care
*Facility-determined age groups and enrollment by age group
Rates Rate Type (CCS/Non-CCS) and individual rate charged per child
Full-day and part-day rates by age group
Additional Fees
Yes Yes
Registration Enrollment Activity
Administrative Categories
Yes Yes
Non-profit/for-profit Associations Transportation
National Accreditations Yes Yes
Texas Rising Star Program Yes Yes *Center rate data were gathered for children in various age groups, using the facility-determined age group cutoffs to set rates. These data were then collapsed into the following standard age groups for reporting: Infants (0-17 months); toddlers (18-35 months); preschoolers (36-71 months); and school age children (72 months and over).
The 2018 surveys were modified slightly from previous years to include two additional items. The
first item followed up with providers who did not accepts CCS children to better understand their reasons
for this decision. Initially, interviewers marked one of five categories based on their response:
⃞ Reimbursement rates too low;
⃞ Attendance reporting requirements;
⃞ Provider did not know about CCS subsidies;
⃞ Other reason (explain__________________); or
⃞ No reason provided.
11
After one month, all open-ended responses were analyzed and recoded. The research team
categorized all other responses and came up with the finalized question:
Is there a reason you do not accept CCS children?
⃞ Not currently caring for CCS children but do accept
⃞ No CSS- In process of setting up
⃞ Families have not requested or needed
⃞ Paperwork/reporting requirements
⃞ Reimbursement rates too low
⃞ Not receiving/receiving late parent co-pays
⃞ Not receiving/receiving late CCS payments
⃞ Facility is full/fills too quickly
⃞ Facility is new/too small
⃞ Need more information/training
⃞ Not set up: No reason provided
⃞ Owner's decision: No reason provided
The second question added asked providers who did accept CCS children, “Do you charge families
an additional amount if their total CCS subsidy plus parent copay is less than your established rate?”
12
Analytic Approach
The technical appendix provides a detailed account of the analytic approach taken in producing
the rates in this report, including the addition of subsidy rates from administrative records. Virtually all
of the daily market rate percentiles and other statistics presented in this report are based on large and
statistically reliable sample sizes. Even in the scarcest categories of care, such as part-day infant and
toddler care in homes, the numbers of rates gathered were sufficient for estimating stable rates.
Because different types of facilities tend to set their rates differently, analysis of center rates was
based on the rates for a category of care (for example, full-day care for toddlers), while the rates for home-
based care (LCCH and RCCH) were determined by the amounts charged for individual children. That is, as
mentioned earlier, in interviews with centers the researchers asked for the rates charged for a particular
age group following a particular schedule. In contrast, researchers asked home-based facilities for the
age and rate charged for each individual child.
After the survey data were collected, all rates that appeared extremely high or low (known as
outliers) were identified, and researchers individually checked each rate report and corrected any errors
they found. Subsequent to these corrections, a small portion of the most extreme outliers remaining in
the sample were corrected to remove their excessive influence on statistical measures of the rates
distributions. In addition, similar procedures were implemented to detect instances in which the number
of slots reported for a given rate was too extreme, whether too high or too low, and to correct these
extremes to more reasonable values. In general, as one might expect in a large and diverse state, extreme
rates, whether at the low or high end of the scale, were typically the result of unusual services provided
by an individual facility and/or variations in subsidies and financing rather than research error.
13
1.3 ANALYSIS AND TRENDS
The basic outcomes for this report are presented in two sections: the first provides the child care
rates; the second describes the prevalence of services and financial and organizational arrangements
among child care facilities. Several interesting trends emerge from this analysis.
The data and analysis in this main report and the supplemental report are voluminous. The
primary tables of daily child care market rates give seven statistics for each of four age groups in each of
two schedule types (part-day and full-day) in three types of facilities for each of the 28 LWDA Boards.
These data yield a total of 4704 statistics. It is likely that in such a massive report, some anomalies will
emerge in the numbers. A systematic analysis was done of all possible comparisons looking for common
rate anomalies, such as when an older child rate significantly exceeds the corresponding rate for a younger
child, or a part-day rate exceeds the corresponding full-day rate. None of these types of anomalies were
found to be present in the data.
Market Rates and Other Statistical Descriptions
A direct comparison of the daily market rates reported in this 2018 survey to those observed in
2017 reveal a number of interesting trends that are evident on a statewide level.2 In prior years’ surveys,
these comparisons generally revealed only the impact of gradual price inflation on child care market rates.
Due to significant methodological changes introduced for 2018, however, these comparisons likely reflect
the combined influence of both price inflation and the new estimation methods. In particular, the
incorporation of administrative data on subsidized rates into the estimation has changed the nature of
the statistical distribution of child care rates. Generally speaking, subsidized rates tend to have less
variation overall, and tend to cluster near or just below the median of market rates. Subsidized child care
rates have always been a significant portion of the priced market in Texas in modern history, and thus of
the rates measured by this survey, but the addition of subsidized rates through a new data source has led
to greater numbers and far better coverage of this market segment. Thus, although the added subsidized
rates were appropriately weighted in an attempt to reflect their true share of the market, including them
in the estimation has apparently led to reductions in the estimated median rates. Interestingly, since the
subsidized rates were rarely observed to be above the median, the effects of price inflation may still be
deduced by observing patterns at the upper end of the distribution, at the 75th percentile, for example.
Overall, across facility types and age groups, estimated median daily rates were found to decrease
by about 10.9 percent during this period, or about ($2.19) per day, when compared to 2017 median daily
2 Comparisons were made of all 672 median rates (28 areas multiplied by 24 rate categories) reported in this survey versus the same rates from the prior annual survey, and are weighted to be representative of care provided on a statewide basis. Similar comparisons were also made at the 75th percentile. Trends in this section were unaffected by November 2018 revisions to the statewide rate tables shown in Section 2.
14
rates. Since this observed decline is at least partially an artifact of the changing estimation method, we
also examined changes at the 75th percentile of rates, which showed that overall, rates increased by 5.3
percent, or $1.26 per day. This rate of increase at the 75th percentile is toward the high end of increases
seen in recent history, as rates are often found to increase from around two to five percent per year.
These trends in rates are the result of diverging patterns among different facility types:
In Licensed Child Care Centers, median rates decreased by an average of 5.9 percent, or about ($1.26) per day. Rates at the 75th percentile in Centers were found to increase by 9.8 percent, or $2.47 per day.
In Licensed Child Care Homes, median rates decreased by an average of 9.5 percent, or about ($1.94) per day. Rates at the 75th percentile in Licensed Homes increased by 6.7 percent, or about $1.62 per day.
In Registered Child Care Homes, estimated median rates decreased by an average of 14.8 percent, or about ($2.83) per day. Rates at the 75th percentile in Registered Homes increased by 1.8 percent, or $0.41 per day.
Changes in the market rates varied by age groups of the children served:
Median rates for infants were found to decrease by an average of 12.6 percent, or about ($2.84) per day. At the 75th percentile, infant rates increased by 2.8 percent, or $0.74 per day
Median rates for toddlers decreased by an average of 8.5 percent, or about ($1.83) per day. Toddler rates at the 75th percentile increased by 7.2 percent, or $1.82 per day.
Median rates for preschoolers decreased by an average of 9.2 percent, or about ($1.74) per day. At the 75th percentile, preschooler rates increased by 7.6 percent, or about $1.70 per day.
Median rates for school aged children decreased by an average of 13.8 percent, or about ($2.34) per day. School aged rates at the 75th percentile were found to increase by 3.9 percent, or $0.79 per day.
Rates for full-day and part-day care diverged:
Median full-day rates were observed to decrease by an average of 9 percent, or about ($1.98) per day. At the 75th percentile, full-day rates increased by 6.6 percent, or about $1.71 per day.
Median part-day rates decreased by an average of 13.3 percent, or about ($2.40) per day. Part-day rates at the 75th percentile showed increases of 3.8 percent, or about $0.82 per day.
Finally, comparing rates across regions, and continuing a trend seen in prior years, the Austin
region (including Capital Area, LWDA 14; and Rural Capital, LWDA 15) has the most expensive child care
in the state. Not far behind are the DFW area (including Tarrant County, LWDA 5, North Central Texas,
LWDA 4, and Dallas, LWDA 6) as well as local boards covering most of the remaining large metro areas of
the state, including Alamo (LWDA 20) and Gulf Coast (LWDA 28). The least expensive care in the state is
along the Rio Grande River, including Middle Rio Grande (LWDA 27), Lower Rio Grande Valley (LWDA 23),
Cameron County (LWDA 24), and Borderplex (LWDA 10), which includes El Paso.
15
Part Day Care Availability
Other trends noted in previous surveys were again evident in 2018. For a number of years now a
short supply of part-day infant care, as well as part-day care in general, has been noted in most areas of
the state.3 As an illustration of this finding, the following figures show percentages of facilities that offer
part-day care for each of four age groups. These are shown for each of the last five annual market rate
surveys.4
Figure 1.3.1 Share of Licensed Centers Offering Part-Day Care over Time
Figure 1.3.1 illustrates these trends for Licensed Centers. This figure makes it clear that part-day
infant and toddler care are the most difficult to find. Furthermore, as will be seen below, these low rates of
availability are the best the market offers to those needing part-day care, as availability among homes is
worse. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of centers that serve older children, including preschool or
school age, offer part-day care.
3 Part-day rates are considered care that is less than 6 hours per day. Part-day rates are not the same as part-time rates. For example, a child attending part-time may attend for two days a week for 8 hours a day, which would be considered a full-day rate. 4 The method of computing part-day care availability was changed for the 2018 report, and was applied to all years shown in chart. For each age group, the denominator is now the total number of facilities serving children of that age group. This change has the effect of clarifying the distinction between low availability of part-day infant care, for example, and low availability of infant care in general.
16
Figure 1.3.2 shows availability of part-day care over time for Licensed Homes. Part-day care for
infants and toddlers in licensed homes is very scarce, offered by fewer than one in ten facilities that serve
these younger children. Part-day care for preschoolers is slightly more available, but is still only offered
by about one in five facilities serving this age group. Part-day for school age children appears to be readily
available in licensed homes that serve this age group.
Figure 1.3.2 Share of Licensed Homes Offering Part-Day Care over Time
17
Figure 1.3.3 illustrates availability of part day care in registered homes, which is quite similar to
the pattern of availability in licensed homes. That is, part-day care for infants and toddlers is very scarce
in registered homes, while part-day availability is slightly better for preschoolers. In contrast, part-day
care for school-age children is offered by the vast majority of registered homes that serve this age group.
Figure 1.3.3 Share of Registered Homes Offering Part-Day Care over Time
18
Quality Care Availability
In order to ensure that Texas families have and maintain access to quality child care, the following
charts were created to show trends over time in two measures that address quality via the concept of
accreditation. Providers who responded to the market rate survey were asked two questions related to
their accreditation status. They were first asked if they had any national accreditations or certifications.
They were then asked if they were a Texas Rising Star provider. Those providers who indicated that they
were a Rising Star provider were further asked how many stars they had.
Figure 1.3.4 Illustrates trends in responses to these items among Licensed Centers. The bottom
line, in blue, shows the share of centers reporting Rising Star status. The middle line, in red, shows the
percentage of centers reporting national accreditation or certifications. And the top line, in yellow, shows
the share of providers reporting either of these quality indicators. Regardless of which indicator one
examines, the trend in recent years has been holding relatively constant to a slight decline over the last
few years followed by an uptick in quality observed in 2018.
Figure 1.3.4 Share of Centers Reporting Accreditation over Time
19
Figure 1.3.5 illustrates trends in responses to these accreditation items among licensed and
registered homes. Among homes, the decline in quality over several years from a recent peak in 2015 is
more pronounced than among centers. As was the case with centers, responses for 2018 indicate an
increasing percentage of homes reporting accreditation of any kind in the latest survey.
Figure 1.3.5 Share of Homes Reporting Accreditation over Time
20
Quality Care Pricing
Critical to the question of availability of quality care is the related issue of how much higher quality
child care costs. Although a detailed study of this issue would require extensive documentation of
provider costs across multiple arenas, it is possible to get a reasonable approximation of the cost of
providing accredited child care through statistical modeling of price data reported to the market rate
survey. This section reports on the results of a series of statistical models designed to elucidate the cost
of providing accredited child care.5
After accounting for the obvious features that drive child care prices, including age of the child,
type of facility, and full or part day care, only a handful of predictors are left that still bear substantial
influence on the rates charged by facilities for a day of child care. The two largest such factors include
whether the facility in question serves subsidized children and whether they report some kind of
accreditation. Furthermore, since these two factors are correlated, it is not possible to get a fair estimate
of the cost of providing accredited care without simultaneously estimating the cost of providing subsidized
care, and vice versa.
Table 1.3.1 Estimated Cost of Subsidy and Accreditation
Facility Type Subsidy Accredited
Centers -$6.31 $8.58
Licensed Homes -$2.89 $4.66
Registered Homes -$2.79 $4.50
Table 1.3.1 shows the results of models that simultaneously estimate the daily added cost of
accreditation and subsidy while controlling for age of child, facility type, and full or part day care. Although
the models are moderately complex, the presentation here is simplified by focusing on the cost of
providing one day of care to one full time preschooler.6 The first row of this table can be interpreted to
mean a typical center that serves subsidized children charges $6.31 per day less than a non-subsidized
center, while an accredited center charges $8.58 per day more than a non-accredited center to serve a
full time preschooler. Among homes, these cost differentials are more muted. Both licensed and
registered homes charge nearly $3 per day less than other facilities if they serve subsidized children, and
about $4.50 more per day if they have national accreditation.
5 Statistical models described in this section are identical to those that underlie the distribution of rates described throughout this report, except for the addition of the quality and subsidy measures shown here. See Appendix A. 6 Full-time preschooler is the most common combination of care provided. Many additional parameters can be estimated from these models, not shown.
21
Table 1.3.2 Estimated Cost of Subsidy and Rising Star Status
Facility Type Subsidy Rising Star, any
Centers -$7.90 $1.98 Licensed Homes -$3.05 $0.52 Registered Homes -$2.91 $0.50
Table 1.3.2 illustrates the results of similar models, except in this case the quality indicator is Texas
Rising Star status. According to these models, centers that serve subsidized children charge $7.90 per day
less that non-subsidized centers, while centers with any number of stars in the Rising Star program charge
$1.98 per day more than centers with no stars.7 As before, homes that serve subsidized children tend to
cost around $3 per day less than those that do not, while homes with Rising Star status charge about $0.50
per day more than those without such status.
Subsidy Acceptance and Pricing
In order to gain insight into the dynamics of which facilities accept subsidized children and how it
affects their pricing for such children, two new questions were added to the survey for 2018. The first
question is addressed to those who serve subsidized children. It asks such facilities whether they charge
more to families of subsidized children if their established rates are greater than the reimbursement they
would receive (which includes the subsidy plus copayment). As shown in Table 1.3.3, less than 5 percent
of centers indicate that they charge such families an additional amount, while about 10 percent of homes
charge a surcharge.
Table 1.3.3 Pricing for CCS Children
Do you charge families an additional amount if their total CCS subsidy plus parent copay is less than your established rate?
Centers Homes
Yes 4.4% 10.2%
7 To the question why the Tables 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 provide different estimates of the cost of a day of subsidized care, the short answer follows. When you estimate the cost of subsidy while holding quality constant, the subsidy cost estimate depends on how good the quality measure is at capturing actual differences in quality. In this technical sense, accreditation is a better quality measure than Rising Star status, since Rising Star status is generally sought only by those serving subsidized children (they can get higher reimbursement), while accreditation is more broadly useful as a quality signifier regardless of whom a facility serves.
22
The second question is addressed to facilities that do not report serving subsidized children, and
asked them whether they had a reason for not accepting subsidized children. Table 1.3.4 summarizes
responses to this question as categorized by interviewers. The most common reason reported by homes
is that families have not requested or needed subsidized care. Also commonly reported by homes is that
they do accept subsidized children but do not currently provide care for any subsidized children at the
time of their interview. Among center respondents, the most common answers are that they are not set
up to accept subsidies, but no reason is provided, or that it was the owner’s decision, again with no reason
provided. Centers not serving subsidized children also frequently claimed that the families they serve
have not requested or needed subsidized care.
Interestingly, about five percent of facilities not serving subsidized children indicated they did not
do so because reimbursement rates were too low. A similar percentage of facilities of either type felt they
needed more information of training in order to accept subsidized children.
Table 1.3.4 Provider Reasons for not Accepting CCS Children
Categorized Response Centers Homes
Not currently caring for CCS children but do accept 0.5% 20.0%
In process of setting up 1.9% 0.5%
Families have not requested or needed 15.8% 45.8%
Paperwork/reporting requirements 9.0% 2.1%
Reimbursement rates too low 4.7% 5.0%
Not receiving/receiving late parent co-pays 0.3% 0.6%
Not receiving/receiving late CCS payments 0.8% 1.2%
Facility is full/fills too quickly 4.2% 1.6%
Facility is new/too small 3.5% 0.4%
Need more information/training 4.7% 5.9%
Not set up: No reason provided 30.7% 10.4%
Owner's decision: No reason provided 20.2% 8.0%
Other 11.7% 3.9%
2. CHILD CARE DAILY MARKET RATES – STATE OF TEXAS8
8 The statewide rates presented in this section are based on revisions to the statewide rate estimation methodology effective November 21, 2018. These supersede prior 2018 statewide rate estimates.
Table 2.1 Texas Child Care Daily Market Rates — State of Texas
3. CHILD CARE DAILY MARKET RATES AND LWDA ESTABLISHED RATES:
PERCENTILE ANALYSIS
29
Maximum reimbursement rates in effect for Local Workforce Development Areas (LWDAs) in April
20189 for the various categories of child care were compared to the distributions of daily market rates
gathered in this 2018 survey to determine at what percentile of the market such maximum rates would
provide access. Similar comparisons were made for maximum enhanced rates, or the highest rate a local
board will reimburse for care in facilities that, for example, receive more stars on the Texas Rising Star
scale, or whatever other criteria are used locally to assign enhanced rates. Exact percentiles at which
access is provided, whether for regular reimbursement or maximum enhanced rates, are listed for all
categories of care in the tables below, as well as the more detailed tables in the supplemental report.
Note, however, that these percentiles at which access to care is potentially available should not be
confused with percentiles at which care is reimbursed.10
General trends in the level of access potentially provided are presented below. Overall, across
care types, facility types, age groups, and local boards, maximum reimbursement rates were found to
provide access to the 46th percentile of market rates, while maximum enhanced rates provide access to
the 54th percentile.11
As shown in the following table, access is fairly uniform across facility types when examining
maximum regular rates, ranging from the 44th to the 46th percentiles. Among maximum enhanced rates,
access is slightly lower for licensed homes, at the 51st percentile, than for licensed centers or registered
homes, for whom maximum enhanced rates allow access at the 54th and 53rd percentiles of the market.
Table 3.1.1 Percentile Analyses by Facility Type
Facility Type Average maximum rate
Percentile of maximum rate
Average maximum
enhanced rate
Percentile of maximum
enhanced rate
Licensed Child Care Centers $21.57 46 $24.05 54
Licensed Child Care Homes $19.00 44 $21.04 51
Registered Child Care Homes $17.83 46 $19.79 53
9 As of this writing, maximum reimbursement rates have been frozen since December 2016. 10 To estimate the percentile at which care is reimbursed, corrections would need to be made for reimbursement below the maximum, as well as differential weighting of more common and rarer forms of care. 11 Although these numbers seem to indicate greater market access than reported in recent surveys, direct comparisons to prior years are difficult due to the methodological changes in rate estimation implemented in 2018.
30
Part-day care and full-day care are potentially reimbursed at about the same percentiles,
indicating roughly equal market access, as shown in the table below. It should be noted, however, that
there is greater uncertainty surrounding market rates for part-day care. As shown previously, many
facilities do not offer part-day care, especially for infants and toddlers, and in most areas it can be difficult
to find.
Table 3.1.2 Percentile Analyses by Rate Type
Rate Type Average maximum rate
Percentile of maximum rate
Average maximum
enhanced rate
Percentile of maximum
enhanced rate
Full-day $23.35 46 $26.00 55
Part-day $17.71 47 $19.82 54
Percentiles of the market to which maximum reimbursement rates potentially provide access also
vary by age groups of the children served. In terms of percentiles at which reimbursement is possible, the
greatest market access is seen for infants, however, as with part time care, infant care can be difficult to
find.
Table 3.1.3 Percentile Analyses by Age Group
Rate Type Average maximum rate
Percentile of maximum rate
Average maximum
enhanced rate
Percentile of maximum
enhanced rate
Infant $26.90 49 $29.92 58
Toddler $23.69 45 $26.35 54
Preschooler $20.47 45 $22.83 53
School age $18.87 48 $21.15 56
Finally, reimbursement percentiles varied by LWDA. The table below lists the percentiles of the
market to which maximum reimbursement rates potentially provide access by LWDA. In the supplemental
report, detailed tables list maximum reimbursement rates and market rate access by facility type, age of
child, and LWDA, for both regular rates and maximum enhanced rates.
31
Table 3.1.4 Percentile Analyses by LWDA
LWDA Average maximum rate
Percentile of maximum rate
Average maximum
enhanced rate
Percentile of maximum
enhanced rate
1 Panhandle $17.72 39 $19.85 48
2 South Plains $16.67 43 $18.41 50
3 North Texas $16.58 46 $18.44 54
4 North Central Texas $24.29 53 $26.77 60
5 Tarrant County $23.38 46 $26.42 55
6 Dallas $20.65 43 $24.68 56
7 North East Texas $17.06 51 $19.62 62
8 East Texas $19.20 53 $20.98 61
9 West Central Texas $14.69 36 $16.03 43
10 Borderplex $15.47 44 $17.46 53
11 Permian Basin $16.61 38 $18.28 46
12 Concho Valley $17.21 42 $19.79 55
13 Heart of Texas $16.42 41 $19.27 55
14 Capital Area $24.48 38 $26.75 44
15 Rural Capital $23.49 42 $27.48 55
16 Brazos Valley $18.83 39 $20.54 46
17 Deep East Texas $16.91 41 $18.46 50
18 South East Texas $16.32 37 $18.28 46
19 Golden Crescent $15.99 39 $17.45 45
20 Alamo $22.31 45 $24.36 52
21 South Texas $17.69 51 $19.58 58
22 Coastal Bend $19.32 48 $21.38 55
23 Lower Rio Grande Valley $15.04 41 $18.05 53
24 Cameron County $13.92 31 $15.75 40
25 Texoma $21.52 53 $23.68 62
26 Central Texas $16.05 41 $17.50 48
27 Middle Rio Grande $15.35 49 $17.65 61
28 Gulf Coast $22.62 48 $24.73 54
33
4. SPECIAL ANALYSES
35
4.1 SPECIAL ANALYSES — SERVICES AND ENROLLMENT
Table 4.1.1 Special Analyses: Texas Services and Enrollment
Licensed Child Care Homes 0.0% 7.1% 1.6% 83.8% 0.0% 0.5% 232
Registered Child Care Homes 1.0% 18.0% 0.4% 73.1% 0.0% 1.3% 502
All Facility Types 8.7% 21.2% 1.3% 63.1% 0.3% 0.8% 2097
APPENDICES
A-1
APPENDIX A. DATA ANALYSIS
It is important to note that all of the daily market rates and percentiles presented in this report
are based on large and statistically reliable sample sizes. Even in the scarcest categories of care, such as
part-day infant and toddler care in Homes, the numbers of rates gathered were sufficient for estimating
highly stable rates, due to innovations in the estimation methodology described below.
Levels of Analysis
Project researchers summarized the survey data and conducted analysis at several distinct levels.
The most basic analyses were done at the level of individual providers. These results, which appear in the
Special Analyses section of the report, document the proportion of providers responding to the survey
that offer various services (e.g., non-traditional hours, transportation), or that fall into different
administrative categories (e.g., sectarian, community-based, and for-profit). The exception to this rule is
the one item that measures the “percent of enrollment that is subsidized,” which is analyzed at the level
of the individual child. A similar item concerns the percentage of facilities that serve any subsidized
children. When this number is higher than the “percent of enrollment” number, it indicates that the
subsidized children in an area are widely dispersed among facilities, and when it is lower, it indicates that
the subsidized children are relatively concentrated among a smaller number of facilities in the area.
The remaining analyses were conducted at either the rate observation level or at the level of the
child care slot, as described below. Each center or home-based facility can contribute more than one rate
observation to the analysis, and each rate observation can represent more than one slot. However, the
nature of this relationship depends on the type of facility. Also, in a new addition for 2018, rates were
included from both this survey and administrative records regarding approved subsidy rates, so different
procedures were also followed for administrative records, as described later.
Among survey data gathered, daily market rates for licensed centers were captured for all
categories of care offered, regardless of whether any children were currently being served in such
categories. The categories consisted of all possible combinations of age group (gathered for actual age
categories in which each center offered rates, but aggregated to the four standard categories for
reporting) by Full-day status (part-day or full-day). Thus, one center could contribute as many as eight
independent rate observations, each representing any number of children (including zero). These rate
observations were then weighted by the number of child care slots they represent (described below)
when calculating market rate percentiles.
A-2
In contrast, market rates for surveyed home-based facilities, including registered homes and
licensed homes, were gathered at the level of the individual child currently being served. Each child’s age,
detailed weekly schedule, and rates charged were gathered for purposes of calculating daily market rates.
In this case, the individual children were treated as independent rate observations, and each facility could
contribute as many as nine observations (or fewer depending on the facility type and number of children
enrolled). Because of this, there was no need to differentially weight the rate observations when
calculating the local market rate percentiles for surveyed home-based facilities: each child (or rate) started
with a weight equal to one (but see weighting discussion below).
For the analysis of surveyed center rates, the number of child care slots for each rate category
was determined in one of two ways. First, for categories of care in which children were currently being
served, the number of children in each category served as a proxy for the number of slots. Second, rate
categories in which no children were currently being served were also included in the analysis, since they
were also theoretically part of the market. This was done by estimating the number of slots for each of
these rate categories with a formula that multiplies the number of children served at each facility by the
average proportion of children, across all licensed centers, served in each rate category. Thus, for
example, a facility that served 100 children and had an existing part-day infant rate schedule, but did not
currently serve any part-day infants, would have its number of slots for this category of care estimated at
two (100 child capacity X 2 percent of children served in the part-day infant category across all licensed
centers). If the same facility served no part-day preschoolers, its number of slots would be estimated at
seven (100 child capacity X 7 percent served in this category across all licensed centers). This method
allows fuller use of the rate information gathered from surveyed centers, especially for rare forms of care
in which rate observations were otherwise scarce.
Statewide Estimation
For statistics conducted at various levels of analysis, special procedures were necessary in order
to compute statewide versions of the tables. Due to the fact that smaller, less populous areas were over-
sampled for this survey (meaning that facilities in these areas were more likely to be selected for the
survey), a correction had to be applied in order to estimate statewide rates without over-representing
facilities in these smaller areas. Finally, starting with the 2018 survey, subsidized facilities were also
under-sampled in order to concentrate survey resources on non-subsidized facilities whose data are more
difficult to gather, while amending data on subsidized facilities by introducing administrative records data.
The correction for both these factors involves computing weights that, when applied to the statewide
analysis, equalize the probability that any given facility or rate might have been selected at random.
A-3
The calculation of weights for statewide estimation varies slightly depending on the level of
analysis: facility level or rate level (see preceding discussion). For facility-level analyses (as in the Special
Analyses section), the weight is the inverse of the probability of selecting the facility at random. Thus, for
small areas in which all facilities were selected, the weight would equal one. For larger areas in which, for
example, 20 percent of facilities were selected, the weight would equal five (1 divided by 0.20). When
these weights are applied to any given statistical analysis, the facility with a weight of five would count
five times as much as the facility with a weight of one, and the result would be representative of the state
as a whole. Calculation of statewide rates is similar to estimation of local rates in that each rate is
weighted according to its share child care slots.
Addition of Rates from Administrative Records
For the first time in 2018, the child care daily market rates in this report were estimated by
including both data from the survey and data from administrative records maintained by TWC known as
approved rates. These approved rates were subjected to several screens, then special weights were
calculated (described next) so that their share of care provided would not be overstated.
A database of approved rates was provided by TWC in June 2018, from which subsidized rates
were drawn. Rates from facility types other than Licensed Centers, Licensed Homes, or Registered Homes
were excluded from further analysis. Only rates that were indicated as active rates as of February 15,
201812 were included, which had the effect of eliminating redundant rates from the same provider. Also
excluded were rates for anything other than “regular day care,” which eliminated night and weekend
rates. At this stage there were 47,622 rates from approved subsidy data.
The next step was to remove 7935 rates from facilities that had been surveyed, to avoid double-
counting these rates. Finally, after removing a small number of rates from facilities who could not be
linked to the survey frame13 or whose capacity was unknown, 38,467 rates remained. For these rates, the
number of slots attributed to each rate was estimated by a statistical model utilizing the facility’s reported
capacity, the typical share of slots allocated to each age group and full or part day status, and the
estimated share of slots dedicated to subsidized children in facilities of this type.
12 This date is the approximate midpoint of the survey field operation. 13 Some of the facilities removed in this step likely opened after the sample was drawn in August 2017.
A-4
Weighting Adjustment to Account for Administrative Records
When incorporating approved subsidy rates from administrative records, it was necessary to
calculate and adjust weights so that any estimation of rates, whether local or statewide, would reflect the
typical balance of subsidized and non-subsidized care. Generally speaking, since so much more data on
subsidized rates are now available, weights for these rates need to be smaller to prevent their contribution
to the rate market from being overstated. Table A-1 summarizes the results of this weighting adjustment.
Table A-1. Weighting Summary
Surveyed Not Surveyed
Not Subsidized Subsidized Subsidized
Number of Rates 4621 5753 38467
Number of Facilities 930 1096 5979
Sum of Rate Weights 10741.0 1436.6 10371.9
Sum of Slot Weights 97509.2 17414.6 57554.5
The first two rows of Table A-1 show the number of rates and number of facilities contributed in
each of three categories of facilities formed by whether the rates came from survey data, administrative
records (subsidized) data, or both. For rates that came from both data sources (middle column, shaded
darker gray), a separate analysis showed general agreement between the sources, but only the surveyed
rate was allowed to contribute to the final analysis. The weight assigned to any given rates depends
critically on which of these three categories it lies.
Rates that were drawn from subsidized facilities (right two columns) were assigned lower weights
by the formulas described above regardless of whether they originated from surveyed or administrative
records data. Thus, although a total of 10,374 rates was contributed by the survey (first two columns),
compared to almost four times as many (38,467) rates from approved subsidy rate data, this imbalance is
corrected through the calculation of rate-level weights and numbers of slots. In the end, after all
calculation of weights and adjustments (bottom row), subsidized care (right two columns) carries about
43 percent of the total weight in the analysis of rates. This is broadly consistent with estimates of the
statewide share of facilities serving subsidized children provided by this survey over the years, which
ranged from 32 to 37 percent in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 surveys.
A-5
Small-Area Estimation
In many smaller LWDAs and for some exceptionally rare rate categories (particularly part-day
infant and toddler care in homes) the number of rate observations would have been too small to estimate
stable rates using traditional methods, even for the many areas in which the entire universe of facilities
had been sampled. For this reason, an estimation methodology first developed for the 2010 survey was
used. Using this approach, parameters are estimated that fully characterize the distribution of rates in
each category of care. These parameters are then applied, using an assumption of normality of the rate
distributions, to estimate each rate percentile of interest. The primary advantage of this solution is that
a medium to large sample size of rates is utilized to estimate each parameter, thus the estimates based
on this methodology are more stable over time, and they fall into the expected patterns more frequently.
Prior to any estimation of parameters, the daily rates themselves are first transformed to make
them assume a more normal distribution. This transformation is done by taking the positive square root
of the daily rate. The effect of this is to minimize the influence of high-end outliers on estimates of the
parameters of distributions14. This transformation is reversed later, following all estimation, by squaring
the rates. The next step in the estimation of parameters involves estimating area effects, the average rate
for each LWDA, while statistically controlling for all other features of the rates involved in the estimation
(including facility type, age group, and rate type). The average rates for all 28 LWDAs are listed in Table
A-2. Note that the Capital Area (LWDA 14) has the highest rates, and Middle Rio Grande (LWDA 27) has
the lowest rates in the state.
Levels of variation or spread among rates in each area, as indicated by the standard deviation
measure, are also listed for LWDAs in the last column of Table A-2. Note that those areas with the highest
average rates also tended to have greater spread among rates. Note also that the average level and
spread of rates in each LWDA was estimated with 280 or more independent rate observations. Thus,
these parameters are estimated with a high level of precision.
The next step involves estimating the typical patterns among rates of varying facility type, age
group, and rate type, while holding constant the area effects measured above. This estimation was done
using one model for licensed centers that included independent predictor variables for the four age
groups and full-day vs. part-day care. A second model was used to estimate these parameters for all
homes combined, but an additional variable was included that coded for Licensed or Registered Home.
Results of this estimation step are shown in Table A-3. In this case, the typical rates are shown in standard
deviation units. Thus, the first row of Table A-3 can be interpreted to mean that full-day infant rates in
centers tend to be roughly six-tenths of a standard deviation higher than the average rate.
14 High rates have greater influence on estimates of the distribution of daily rates due to the simple fact that rates cannot go below zero, but there is no effective upper limit. Square root transformation mutes this influence.
A-6
Table A-2. Area Effects, Untransformed Rates
LWDA Observations Average15 St. Dev.
1 Panhandle 777 20.59 7.60
2 South Plains 860 19.09 7.13
3 North Texas 624 17.92 7.70
4 North Central Texas 3563 24.17 11.83
5 Tarrant County 3428 25.20 10.99
6 Dallas 4411 23.35 10.76
7 North East Texas 548 17.43 7.32
8 East Texas 1267 18.78 7.61
9 West Central Texas 568 17.65 7.07
10 Borderplex 2421 17.12 7.66
11 Permian Basin 631 19.59 7.26
12 Concho Valley 282 19.01 6.12
13 Heart of Texas 692 18.72 6.91
14 Capital Area 2179 29.34 11.68
15 Rural Capital 1633 26.61 10.17
16 Brazos Valley 666 22.24 9.05
17 Deep East Texas 501 18.59 6.96
18 South East Texas 728 19.40 7.34
19 Golden Crescent 421 18.98 8.12
20 Alamo 3392 24.26 9.49
21 South Texas 716 17.81 8.03
22 Coastal Bend 1006 20.77 10.02
23 Lower Rio Grande Valley 3040 17.54 8.62
24 Cameron County 1165 17.57 7.28
25 Texoma 395 21.13 6.86
26 Central Texas 1446 18.28 7.55
27 Middle Rio Grande 360 16.07 6.32
28 Gulf Coast 11121 23.76 10.65
15 For ease of illustration, figures in this table represent the average and standard deviations of untransformed rates, though transformed rates were used in actual calculations.
A-7
Table A-3. Rate Type Effects
Facility Type Age Group Rate Type Observations Deviation from Average Rate
Licensed Child Care Centers
Infant Full-day 4394 0.617
Part-day 2335 0.166
Toddler Full-day 4828 0.444
Part-day 2824 0.024
Preschool Full-day 5811 0.216
Part-day 5474 -0.341
School age Full-day 5117 0.001
Part-day 5268 -0.514
Licensed Child Care Homes
Infant Full-day 811 0.121
Part-day 419 -0.192
Toddler Full-day 1375 0.274
Part-day 468 -0.139
Preschool Full-day 939 0.078
Part-day 609 -0.329
School age Full-day 592 -0.293
Part-day 664 -0.643
Registered Child Care Homes
Infant Full-day 1059 0.152
Part-day 425 -0.432
Toddler Full-day 1800 0.190
Part-day 474 -0.503
Preschool Full-day 1003 -0.126
Part-day 673 -0.704
School age Full-day 618 -0.581
Part-day 861 -0.838
Note that in all combinations of care type, the number of observations in Table A-3 is more than
sufficient for estimating the patterns among rates to a high degree of precision.
A-8
Finally, the 28 area effects from Table A-2 are recombined with the 24 rate type effects from
Table A-3 to estimate the parameters (mean and standard deviation) of the distributions of all 672
categories of care in the full report. Using these parameters together with known properties of normal
distributions, one can then estimate percentiles of the rate distributions for all categories of care. As
described above, these figures are then squared to undo the transformation described above. Overall,
the resulting percentile estimates were found to be much more stable over time, in comparison to
estimates made for small areas using the methodology of market rate surveys prior to 2010.
Natural Disaster
In August 2017, just as the survey was being prepared for fielding, Hurricane Harvey struck the
gulf coast, causing unprecedented destruction and flooding across a broad swath of southeast Texas. In
order the minimize the chances of this event negatively impacting the survey findings, the research
team used an algorithm to probabilistically assign facilities in counties most affected by the storm to
later blocks of the survey, so that their surveys could be delayed by several months in the hopes that
any facilities affected would have extra time to recover, and re-open if necessary. An authoritative list
of 39 affected counties was drawn from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA)
website16 showing which counties had been declared disaster counties designated for “individual
assistance” on August 25, 2017.
Table A-4. Surveys Completed in Disaster and Non-disaster Counties
Disaster Counties Non-Disaster Counties
Centers Homes Centers Homes
Oct-2017 2 1 74 30
Nov-2017 10 0 285 267
Dec-2017 12 0 148 114
Jan-2018 10 0 254 211
Feb-2018 36 52 332 415
Mar-2018 164 93 290 233
Apr-2018 122 129 97 91
May-2018 15 8 30 6
Completion Rate 77.1% 41.7% 73.0% 45.1%
16 Web page accessed on October 5, 2018: https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4332
As shown in Table A-4, this strategy resulted in the bulk of facilities in disaster counties being
surveyed between February and May, 2018. This was only partially successful in avoiding impacts of the
storm, however, since the resulting completion rate in disaster counties was still a few percentage
points below that seen in non-disaster counties (last row of table A-4). To adjust for this minor shortfall,
a ‘disaster county’ indicator was included in the response bias model, described next, resulting in a slight
increase in weights for facilities in these counties. The fact that facilities in these counties were
surveyed later should have little additional influence on the average values of rates gathered, since most
facilities that increase their rates do so in the fall before school starts. It is not known at this point
whether non-responding facilities in these disaster counties were closed temporarily, permanently, or
otherwise. No additional adjustments are necessary.
Response Bias Adjustment
In order to adjust for any bias due to what types of facilities responded to the survey, a response
model was developed using logistic regression. Predictors for this regression included only measures
derived from registry data maintained by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
(DFPS). This ensured that no facilities would be excluded due to missing data. These measures included
indicators for self-reported features of care provided including accreditation, offers transportation,
accepts subsidies, serves infants, toddlers, preschoolers, school age, special needs children, special skills,
field trips, get well care, as well as after school, drop in, part time, or weekend care. Additional
measures included the facility age in years, based on the initial license issue date, as well age squared to
account for potential quadratic effects. Finally, an indicator of whether or not the facility was located in
a disaster county, as described above, was also included. The dependent or response variable for this
regression was an indicator showing whether the facility completed the survey, in whole or in part.
Facilities determined to be ineligible for the survey were excluded from the regression.
The results of this response model indicated only a small overall response bias (model R-
squared = .043 in centers, .031 in homes). Weights were computed by inverting the estimated
probability of response for individual facilities, and were included in analyses to allow adjustment for
this minimal bias at either the facility or rate level. These weights were combined with the other
weights described earlier.
B-1
APPENDIX B. 2018 QUESTIONNAIRES: LICENSED CHILD CARE CENTERS
1. Date: _________________________
2. Interviewer: ______________________________
3. Hi. Can I please speak to the director of (CENTER NAME)? Hi, my name is ___________and I’m calling from the University of Texas at Austin on behalf of the Texas Workforce Commission. We are conducting the annual childcare market rate study. Do you have about 5 minutes to answer questions about your center?
Accept - Continue with survey Refusal Overdial Not eligible Wrong number - New number is available ____________________ Withdrew
4. Does your facility offer full time child care at least 6 hours per day and five days a week?
5. If no, does your facility offer school care or part day child care (<6 hours) five days a week?
6. Is your facility any of the following?
Only a drop-in care center (no regular rates; i.e., gym, hospital, mall) A Head Start program A free child care service A facility not open to the public/only serves specific groups A facility offering only summer camps A kindergarten or school not offering regular child care or after-school care None of the above- Continue Survey
7. What are your hours of operation (M-F)?
Weekday Open Close Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
8. What are your hours of operation on Saturday and Sunday, if any?
Weekday Open Close Saturday Sunday
B-2
9. How many days out of the year do you close for national, state, or religious holidays?
10. Outside of weekends and holidays, how many days out of the year do you close for personal vacation, summer, or any other reasons?
11. Do you regularly offer drop-in care?
Yes No Don't know
12. Altogether, how many children are enrolled at your center?
Number of Children Enrolled: _____________________
Number of Age Groups: ____________________
13. What are the age groups on which your rate structure is based?
Grou
p
Age Range in Months Total Enrolled
Comments about age group Min Max
Full Time
5 days, 6+hrs
Part Day
5 days. <6 hrs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
14. Full Time Rates: Ask about each age group
a. What are your standard full-time rates (6+hrs per day/5 days per week) for children in Age Group__?
b. Is that rate per hour, day, week, month, or year?
c. How many days of care per week does this rate cover?
d. Do you currently have a full-time waitlist for this group?
15. Part Day Rates: Ask about each age group
a. What are your standard part day rates (Less than 6 hrs per day/5 days per week) for children in Age Group__?
b. Is that rate per hour, day, week, month, or year?
c. How many days of care per week does this rate cover?
d. Do you currently have a part day waitlist for this group?
B-3
16. Additional Weekend Rates
a. What are your standard Additional weekend rates for children in Age Group ___?
b. Is that rate per hour, day, week, month, or year?
17. Rate Comments: ______________________
18. Fees: Do you charge a ____________________ (in addition to the regular rate)?
Yes No Unsure Amount
One time registration fee
Yearly or semester enrollment fee
Additional activity or supply fee
a. If enrollment fee is Yes: Is your enrollment fee per _____________?
Semester Academic Year Calendar Year
b. If activity fee is Yes: Is your activity fee per _____________?
Month Semester Academic Year Calendar Year
c. Comments about additional rates: _________________________________________________________
19. Do you provide any discounts in the form of a sliding scale? (Note: If offer scholarships to some
children, count as sliding scale)
Yes No Don’t know
B-4
20. Do you accept CCS children (children receiving subsidies)? How many slots do you allocate for CCS children?
Do not accept CCS children Accept CCS children, do NOT allocate a specific number of slots Accept CCS children, allocate specific number or percent of slots: ____________________ Don't Know
If no-> Is there a reason you do not accept CCS children?
If yes-> Do you charge families an additional amount if their total CCS subsidy plus parent co-pay is less than your established rate?
Yes No Don’t know Does not apply
21. Does your center offer regular transportation? (Excludes field trips)
Yes No Don’t know
22. Is your child care center a for-profit or non-profit facility (501.C3 status)?
Non-Profit For-Profit Don't Know
B-5
23. Is your child care facility __________?
Part of a local or regional chain Part of a national chain Independently owned Other ____________________ None of the above Don't know
24. Is your child care associated with any of the following?
Church or religious organization Community-based organization YMCA/ YWCA Public school Private or parochial school Military institution Other ____________________ No associations Don't know
25. Does your facility receive any of the following services for free or at a reduced cost?
Building use Utilities Volunteer work Furniture or equipment Supplies Other ____________________ None Don't know
26. Does your facility receive any donations?
Federal Child Care Food Program CCMS (other than subsidies) United Way Religious institutions Local, state or federal government funding Private or individual donations YMCA / YWCA School district Foundations Other ____________________ No donations Don't know
B-6
27. In addition to your state operating license, does your center have any of the following national accreditation or certifications?
NAEYC - National Association for the Education of Young Children NAFCC - National Association for Family Child Care NACC - National Association of Child Care Professionals Montessori Accreditation Other: ____________________ No accreditations Don't Know
28. Is your service certified as a Texas Rising Star provider?
Yes, number of stars: ____________________ No Don't know
29. General comments: __________________________________________________________
Thank you for your time.
C-1
APPENDIX C. 2018 QUESTIONNAIRES: REGISTERED AND LICENSED CHILD CARE HOMES
1. Date: _________________________
2. Interviewer: ______________________________
3. Hi, Can I please speak to the director of (CENTER NAME). Hi, my name is ___________and I’m calling from the University of Texas at Austin on behalf of the Texas Workforce Commission. We are conducting the annual childcare market rate study. Do you have about 3-5 minutes to answer questions about your center?
Accept - Continue with survey Refusal Overdial Not eligible Wrong number - New number is available ____________________ Withdrew
4. Are you a registered or licensed home child care provider?
Registered Child Care Home (RCCH) Licensed Child Care Home (LCCH) Neither- Not Eligible
5. What are your hours of operation (M-F)?
Weekday Open Close Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
6. What are your hours of operation on Saturday and Sunday, if any?
Weekday Open Close Saturday Sunday
7. Do you regularly offer drop-in care?
Yes No Don't know
8. How many days out of the year do you close for national, state, or religious holidays?
C-2
9. Outside of weekends and holidays, how many days out of the year do you close for personal vacation, summer, or any other reasons?
10. Altogether, how many children including your own are you currently caring for at your home?
Number of ALL Children: _____________________ 11. How many of these children are either not paying or paying at discounted rates because they are
friends or family?
Number of Discounted Children: ____________________
12. Total Eligible Children: ______________________
For Interviewer purpose only, I am only going to ask about the __ children not receiving friend or family discounting rates.
13. How many of these children receive subsidized care through CCS? __________________ ->If 0: Is there a reason you do not accept CCS children?
->If 1 or more: Do you charge families an additional amount if their total CCS subsidy plus parent co-pay is less than your established rate?
Yes No Don’t know Does not apply
C-3
14. For this next question, I will ask about each child's age and schedule. If you care for siblings, please list them together by family. a. How old is the youngest child in the first family?" b. What time does this child arrive on ____? (M-Su) c. What time do they leave on _____? (M-Su)
Child
Family ID Age
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri Sat Sun
Family
Child
Months
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
*A=Arrive/*L=Leave
15. Rates a. Does child __ receive subsidized care through CCS? (Ask about all children)
b. Rate Amount:
i. NON-CCS: What is the rate or cost of childcare for this child?
ii. CCS/CoPay: Can you tell me the amount you receive from CCS? / What is the parent Co-Pay?
iii. CSS Total Only: How much money do you receive in total for the care of this child?
c. Is that rate per hour, day, week, month, or year?
d. Does this child receive a multiple child discount?
e. How many children are covered under this rate?
f. Rate Comments: _____________________________________
C-4
16. Fees: Do you charge a ____________________ (in addition to the regular rate)?
Yes No Unsure Amount
One time registration fee
Yearly or semester enrollment fee
Additional activity or supply fee
a. If enrollment fee is Yes: Is your enrollment fee per _____________?
Semester Academic Year Calendar Year
b. If activity fee is Yes: Is your activity fee per _____________?
Month Semester Academic Year Calendar Year
c. Comments about additional rates: ___________________________________________
17. Do you offer regular transportation as defined by using your own personal vehicle to transport children (excludes field trips)?
Yes No Don’t know
18. Do you have a waitlist for any age groups? If so, which ones?
Infants (0-17 months) Toddlers (18-35 months) Preschool (36-71 months) School Age (72+ months) No Waitlist Don't know
19. Is your child care home a for-profit or non-profit child care home (501.C3 status)?
Non-Profit For-Profit Don't Know
20. Is your child care associated with any of the following?
Church or religious organization Community-based organization Other ____________________ No associations Don't know
C-5
21. In addition to your state operating license, does your home have any of the following national accreditation or certifications?
NAEYC - National Association for the Education of Young Children NAFCC - National Association for Family Child Care NACC - National Association of Child Care Professionals Montessori Accreditation Other: ____________________ No accreditations Don't Know
22. Is your service certified as a Texas Rising Star provider?
Yes, number of stars: ____________________ No Don't know
23. General comments: _______________________________________________________________________